Republic of the Philippines

CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS Manila

CITY ASSESSOR OF CEBU, Respondent-Appellant,

– versus –

CBAA CASE NO. V-05 THE LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT

APPEALS OF CEBU CITY, Appellee,

– and –

ALEXANDER S. GAISANO and

In Re:

LBAA CASE # 306-329 TD# GR-06-038-01450
TD# 01472, CEBU CITY

STEPHEN S. GAISANO, JR., doing business under the name “GAISANO BROS., MERCHANDISING, INC.”,
Petitioner-Appellee. x – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x

RESOLUTION

This refers to the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Petitioners-

Appellees, Alexander S. Gaisano and Stephen S. Gaisano, Jr., dated April 21,

1995, seeking to set aside the Decision of this Board dated November 15,

1994, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of Appellee Board, is hereby REVERSED. The assessments of Respondent-Appellant, City Assessor of Cebu City, on the aforestated lots with Alex S. Gaisano et al as “beneficial user” to take effect with the year 1988 and 1989, respectively is declared void. The order of the Appellee, Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Cebu City, as to the real property taxes paid to be tax credited to the future real property taxes due on the aforementioned lots is hereby revoked and modified, it appearing that under the present Section 253 of R.A. No. 7160, the same shall be treated in a separate cause of action under the jurisdiction of the Appellee Local Board of Assessment Appeals.”

In support of the aforesaid motion, Petitioners-Appellees argue:

1. That the contract to sell between the Public Estates Authority and

Petitioners-Appellees was merely an option to buy and sell in the future, no

beneficial use was granted;

2. That No. 5 of the terms and conditions of the Contract to Sell

clearly indicates the intention of the parties that “Pending full payment of the

purchase price of the Subject Property, the title and possession over the

Subject Property shall be retained by the Owner”;

Reference: Book VII, pp. 248-252

3. That there is no proof that the buyer was in possession of the

property and that the mere execution of the said contract to sell does not give

rise to the presumption that the beneficial use has been granted to the buyer;

4. That Article 1370 of the New Civil Code, which provides that “if the

terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the

contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control,” should

apply; and

5. That Condition No. 4 of the Contract to Sell does not serve to

defeat or efface the clear provisions of Condition No. 5 because Condition No.

4, by way of anticipation, merely provides the remedies in the event that there is

default in payment of the purchase price.

We find Petitioners-Appellees’ Motion for Reconsideration to be without

merit.

The arguments presented by petitioners-appellees on reconsideration are

not new. They were already considered and dealt with extensively in our

decision (see pages 16-23 of the Decision). This Board now deems it

unnecessary to delve further on the same. Our position on the matter remains

unchanged. The Contract to Sell by and between the Public Estates Authority

and Petitioners-Appellees clearly shows that the real properties embraced

therein were sold in installment. A sale by installment, as in the instant case,

from a government corporation so exempt by its charter to a taxable person is

considered a grant (see Article III, par. A, of Assessment Regulations No. 3-75,

dated February 10, 1975, of the Department of Finance, Rules and Regulations

for the Implementation of the Assessment Provisions of the Real Property Tax

Code, P.D. 464). Thus, Petitioners-Appellees cannot claim exemption under

Section 40(a) of P.D. 464 which reads:

“(a) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions and any government-owned corporation so exempt by its charter: Provided, however, that this exemption shall not apply to real property of the above-named entities the beneficial use of which has been granted for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person.” (underscoring supplied)

Reference: Book VII, pp. 248-252

WHEREFORE, finding no sufficient justification or cogent reason to

disturb our earlier decision, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED

for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Manila, Philippines, August 10, 1995.

(Signed) MARGARITA G. MAGISTRADO
Chairman

(Signed)

ELEANOR A. SANTOS VACANT Member Member

Reference: Book VII, pp. 248-252